A most interesting post.
I reads to me like you traded anti-Catholicism for anti-Orthodoxy. Big swings.
We resist development of doctrine, that is a natural result of an apophatic theological outlook.
The church will continually react to change in circumstances following principles laid out for us very early. The form of organization does not chnge, but it will grow geographically to encompass more nations.
Thus we will erect new diocese as needed, and raise new synods as warranted, even patriarchates. We have lost many dioceses and synods too, a pity. We adapt because the church is a living community, we follow the canons of the early church in making these decisions.
The early church was indeed composed of local synods of churches, this was true in the west as well. As new nations were evangelized the liturgy was translated into the vernacular. Later in history new synods were erected, following the earlier models.
Your own National Bishops Conferences area pale reflection of what was the same organizational structure in your Latin church (suppressed in 1870, revived in the 20th century in a more restrained and passive form). And the Maronite church you love so much is actually the fruit of this very same process of erecting new synods and patriarchates according to need. It is a very ancient practice.
I have no doubt that you are seeing things differently.
So then, are you saying that before these churches “came back” the Latin church was not Catholic in the full sense of the word?
This type of Catholicity is a new thing, one bishop controlling the others.
Have you ever heard of “Praestantia Ritus Latini” ? Diversity of rites is a modern fashion in the church.
The policy of the past was to suppress all non-Latin rites. The concept of Sui Iuris chuches is practically brand new, since 1990. Before then there was only one church, and one code of canons all rites had to follow.
Czech Republic, Slovakia, southern Poland, what was later to become Hungary (before the Magyars) and a few other more minor areas were originally evangelized into the Byzantine rite. All forcefully suppressed.
In the west those suppressed included the Mozarabic, the Celtic and the Gallic churches.
Yes, the kings of the west adopted the same policies as the emperors of the east. Sadly, to monarchs the attuitude is often “all must conform”.
The Melkites were the “king’s party”, and they followed the emperor in his preference for the theology of the Orthodox. Those who did not follow Chalcedon set themselves up against the emperor and his church. It is all true.
The king’s party adopted the liturgy of the Great church in Constantinople, Hagia Sophia. No doubt political pressure was applied to expedite this change.
You are not addressing the point. The point is Protestantism sprung from the loins of the Catholic church, and it’s unique theology. This fact is neither rude nor polemical, it’s just fact.
Protestantism and Catholicism of your variety are like two sides of the same coin.
All of the major Protestant innovators were trained and ordained priests of the Latin Catholic church, save one: Calvin. He was born into a Latin Catholic family and trained as a lawyer, educated in Latin Catholic schools.
This is why you guys can go on and on together arguing about the nature of Justification, the Faith and Works argument, the damnation of the unbaptised, predestination, etc…
The two groups are cut from the same bolt of cloth and speak the same language. In a sense the Papacy really is the first Protestant church, introducing rationalism into religious thought, and opening the gate wide for more and more innovation. I suppose it depends upon how one defines Protestantism, but it looks like the Latin Catholic church has all the marks.
God grant you many years!